This person seems to be living in a fantasy world where people don’t need to make a living with content that they’re making. In an ideal world where people don’t need money to survive, this position is also ideal. In the real world, it’s completely unsustainable.
You seem to be under the impression that the folk making the thing are also the ones seeing direct compensation from sales and that largely is not true
Any proves? The pirates are not the potential byers that you, as a hypothetical content creator, had lost, they either want to try before they buy, or won’t buy even if they had no choice.
what a delusional low-effort argument. Do you create anything opensource or for free on the internet? or Do you create anything at all? If not who are you to decide what the hypothetical content creator thinks?
Everyone would prefer things for free if they could get away with it online, doesn’t make it an ethical argument.
So let’s say if people could pirate things from other sources that the creator themselves, why would anyone bother to create anything at all.
Thanks for proving my point. The authors willingly shared it. They put it out into the world with the intention of it being shared freely. That is not the case for pirated media/content. If OSS was released with a different license, it would be just as much theft as piracy if the writers of the code didn’t intend for it to be free or shared willingly.
Well, if you can’t provide reasonable arguments, why won’t I help you? Not that I haven’t thought about all pros and cons I could imagine on the topic and it didn’t disprove my original point. And not that not providing any evidence for your opinion to prove, waiting for opponent to imagine it for you, is making you, as a collocutor, as interesting and valuable as a scarecrow.
But to the point. If you will read my responses to other people here (idk why would you do that but anyway) you’ll notice that I’ve already used this example, but since all your arguments are all the same, I’m not seeing a problem here. So here it is: Louvre had pirated Mona Lisa. They scanned the original, and then posted it to the Internet. Now you can see it online for free. Before it happened, it required you to go to the place to see it, now you don’t have to. Did Mona Lisa lost in value because of it? Does no one goes to Louvre nowadays because of the fact that all the works you could see there where scanned and posted online?
You could argue that Mona Lisa is unique and it’s scan is not a full copy of experience you meet if you go to the museum. Well, it’s just like if you download a game from torrents — you still won’t get all the author provided for his customers: you won’t get patches, you won’t get online features, in other words, you won’t get the service. But you also won’t get some the troubles: just as I don’t have to buy tickets to France, spend my time and money, now I don’t have to buy before I try. Of course I am not a stupid, I understand that author needs to eat, so of course I would buy his product if I liked it.
If you think about it, in terms of mentality, it’s not that different from what we have with lemmy. And it’s also a more healthy consumer culture due to it’s grown selectiveness. You see, nowadays in game industry the piracy is almost dead. You might be happy because of it. I don’t know why would you be, because the unkle Sam told you that it’s a bad thing? Anyhow, let me stop you for a moment, and think: what did it lead to?
If you remembered all the problems the industry, and especially AAA games today have, you got the point and can skip this paragraph. If not, let me describe: since now the habit of preordering the games you like became as wide spread as it could be, since customers finally got that muscular reflex of buying everything good-looking, we have a huge creativity and quality crysis. Why would game studios polish their game, why would they try to invent something new, why would they hire qa team, why would they do all of that, if the customer paid full price for a preorder as soon as they showed him a little fancy trailer? And since the customers are so obedient, companies could make them eat shit. You can’t own a copy of a game by Ubisoft anymore, no, if you check their agreement, it says that you can go fuck yourself, because now they can do whatever they would like with your uplay game library, and if you’ve read what I wrote here at least somehow attentively, you can conclude that all of that are your, misters “piracy is wrong”, your all fault. You can go and preorder ten more games after seeing their “promising” trailers, god riddance, fellow non-pirater.
If everyone would prefer things for free, then why are we even discussing this topic here? I mean, if it was so, you would’ve been a pirate too. And if your point is right, then why, for instance, do I have over a hundred games on steam, even though I’ve pirated a lot. Most of the pirated games I’ve bought later.
what a delusional low-effort argument. Do you create anything opensource or for free on the internet? or Do you create anything at all?
Lol, the first sentence literally fits everywhere. I could say exactly the same about your comment, but I won’t, since unlike you, I can prove my point without belittling or insult attempts, or, by appealing to the personality behind the arguments, but not to the arguments themselves, like you did in your next sentences. Anyway. Do I create anything? Yes. Is it finished? No. Will it be opensource? Yes. Does it matter in the current context? No. Why? Because if you just look around, you would see that the world is not as simple as you imagine it. If everyone would prefer things for free, then why lemmy still exists? Why anyone bothers to willingly pay it’s authors even if it gives no advantages? Why blender foundation still stands? There’re lots of “why”.
If not who are you to decide what the hypothetical content creator thinks?
If you’re asking this question, then maybe you have read my comment poorly. I’ve never assumed what a hypothetical content creator thinks. I only pointed out that one should not consider pirated copies as a lost profit and pointed out why.
So let’s say if people could pirate things from other sources that the creator themselves, why would anyone bother to create anything at all.
There was some cases in the game industry when the original game creators posted their own game on torrent trackers, and said that anyone could pirate their game. Guess what? The games still were successful. Each of them. Some even got additional support after that. Yeah, financial support by pirates. Sounds paradoxical, huh? The world is not just black and white, it’s all shades of grey.
If that was the case, they wouldn’t get to ingest the content. As it stands, they are ingesting the content without paying the authors of said content. They’re violating the social contract between a creator and the end-user.
Lol. Social contract? It’s not a social contract if it is written in paper by lawyers of only one side. It’s terms of service, which poorly transcribe rules of material world to the world of information.
I could copy your comment, and use it’s text as I would like. Have I stolen your comment? Have I violated social contract between us by doing so?
It is a social contract. We’re not talking about contracts or terms of services. We’re talking about the most basic social contract of any society in existence - you do/give something for/to me in exchange for me doing/giving something for/to you.
Did I make my comment with the expectation that someone would pay for it? No? Then your comment is nonsense.
Yeah, my analogy was bad. Haven’t put enough thought in it. But now that I did thought on the topic, I still can’t agree with you, here’s why:
If we were talking about our good old physical world, you’d be correct. For example we can take such thing as tipping: in the US you absolutely must tip. If I’ll go to the US I still will be expected to leave a tip, even though I’m not a local, and I will absolutely break a social contract if I do otherwise. Kinda obvious.
But here’s a thing: first of all, social contract is a consensus inside of a group. If there’s no consensus, there’s no social contract. There could be some, of course, if we look at a smaller set of people.
But, here’s one more: the people in the Internet are not as divided as in real world, they’re all mixed up almost in every way they could be, so there’s no social contracts about the Internet, if we’re talking about it as a the whole of course, and so there are definitely none on the piracy topic.
Where I came from, piracy is fine. Where you came from it is almost a crime. We have different social contracts irl.
So yeah, when you said that pirating is a social contract violation, what group of people you meant as the context? Because we’re currently on c/piracy, here it is the norm. And if there was a social contract on the discussed topic on lemmy, there would be no such community as the one we’re currently chatting in.
You could say that piracy violates our agreement on that stealing is bad, I might’ve said that you can’t steal the information, since you’re always only copying the original, but that would be not true. One could steal the information.
My point is that piracy is different from stealing. What’s the distinction you may ask? Giving the credit I say.
Here is the example: you’re a compositor. I steal your song if I copy it, maybe add some minor details (even though this step is completely optional), and then release it as if it was mine. This is stealing. Cutting webcomics’ watermarks and posting them that way, is also stealing.
But if you upload your copy of a product you purchased, without covering original author’s name and claiming it yours, it’s sharing, don’t you think? Louvre pirated Mona Lisa by scanning it and sharing the scan online. You could see Mona Lisa for free. Does it lessen the amount of people wanting to visit the Louvre? I doubt that:)
Your argument is flawed. If you’ve ever purchased any kind of media for money then you are aware of the social contract. If you have a job where you do a service for someone in exchange for money, you are aware of and understand the social contract. The only subsection of people that this wouldn’t apply to is people who have only ever purchased physical goods and never paid for a service and I have to imagine that number is near zero.
As far as the “stealing” comment, you’re stealing the income from the creator. You’re not stealing the media if you’re not depriving someone of it. We can agree on that. If you make use of something without paying for it and it wasn’t given to you as a gift, you are stealing the livelihood from the creator who made it with the expectation that they would be paid for its use. Sharing something in this context is just semantics. If it wasn’t given to you with the intent to be shared, then that’s breaking another social contract.
There’s no other way to put it except that people would stop making art the way they do if they couldn’t make money off it. We live in a world where we need to make a living while trying to make the things we’re passionate about. There are very few people in the chain that make so much money that they can afford to do it while people “share” their work without paying.
this was the most popular response when this was posted on lemmy or kbin a couple months ago. seems the author is pushing a new wave with bots or alts? we’ll never know but some of the response seem identical to me.
This person seems to be living in a fantasy world where people don’t need to make a living with content that they’re making. In an ideal world where people don’t need money to survive, this position is also ideal. In the real world, it’s completely unsustainable.
You seem to be under the impression that the folk making the thing are also the ones seeing direct compensation from sales and that largely is not true
The author didn’t make that distinction, why should I?
You seem to be under the impression that piracy has no effect. That is untrue.
Any proves? The pirates are not the potential byers that you, as a hypothetical content creator, had lost, they either want to try before they buy, or won’t buy even if they had no choice.
what a delusional low-effort argument. Do you create anything opensource or for free on the internet? or Do you create anything at all? If not who are you to decide what the hypothetical content creator thinks?
Everyone would prefer things for free if they could get away with it online, doesn’t make it an ethical argument.
So let’s say if people could pirate things from other sources that the creator themselves, why would anyone bother to create anything at all.
Exactly… in a world where money is a requirement, who would ever make new content if they knew people were just going to share it for free?
Have you heard of opensource software? No? Because you’re using one right now. It’s exactly free and shared willingly by it’s authors:)
Thanks for proving my point. The authors willingly shared it. They put it out into the world with the intention of it being shared freely. That is not the case for pirated media/content. If OSS was released with a different license, it would be just as much theft as piracy if the writers of the code didn’t intend for it to be free or shared willingly.
Well, if you can’t provide reasonable arguments, why won’t I help you? Not that I haven’t thought about all pros and cons I could imagine on the topic and it didn’t disprove my original point. And not that not providing any evidence for your opinion to prove, waiting for opponent to imagine it for you, is making you, as a collocutor, as interesting and valuable as a scarecrow.
But to the point. If you will read my responses to other people here (idk why would you do that but anyway) you’ll notice that I’ve already used this example, but since all your arguments are all the same, I’m not seeing a problem here. So here it is: Louvre had pirated Mona Lisa. They scanned the original, and then posted it to the Internet. Now you can see it online for free. Before it happened, it required you to go to the place to see it, now you don’t have to. Did Mona Lisa lost in value because of it? Does no one goes to Louvre nowadays because of the fact that all the works you could see there where scanned and posted online?
You could argue that Mona Lisa is unique and it’s scan is not a full copy of experience you meet if you go to the museum. Well, it’s just like if you download a game from torrents — you still won’t get all the author provided for his customers: you won’t get patches, you won’t get online features, in other words, you won’t get the service. But you also won’t get some the troubles: just as I don’t have to buy tickets to France, spend my time and money, now I don’t have to buy before I try. Of course I am not a stupid, I understand that author needs to eat, so of course I would buy his product if I liked it.
If you think about it, in terms of mentality, it’s not that different from what we have with lemmy. And it’s also a more healthy consumer culture due to it’s grown selectiveness. You see, nowadays in game industry the piracy is almost dead. You might be happy because of it. I don’t know why would you be, because the unkle Sam told you that it’s a bad thing? Anyhow, let me stop you for a moment, and think: what did it lead to?
If you remembered all the problems the industry, and especially AAA games today have, you got the point and can skip this paragraph. If not, let me describe: since now the habit of preordering the games you like became as wide spread as it could be, since customers finally got that muscular reflex of buying everything good-looking, we have a huge creativity and quality crysis. Why would game studios polish their game, why would they try to invent something new, why would they hire qa team, why would they do all of that, if the customer paid full price for a preorder as soon as they showed him a little fancy trailer? And since the customers are so obedient, companies could make them eat shit. You can’t own a copy of a game by Ubisoft anymore, no, if you check their agreement, it says that you can go fuck yourself, because now they can do whatever they would like with your uplay game library, and if you’ve read what I wrote here at least somehow attentively, you can conclude that all of that are your, misters “piracy is wrong”, your all fault. You can go and preorder ten more games after seeing their “promising” trailers, god riddance, fellow non-pirater.
If everyone would prefer things for free, then why are we even discussing this topic here? I mean, if it was so, you would’ve been a pirate too. And if your point is right, then why, for instance, do I have over a hundred games on steam, even though I’ve pirated a lot. Most of the pirated games I’ve bought later.
Lol, the first sentence literally fits everywhere. I could say exactly the same about your comment, but I won’t, since unlike you, I can prove my point without belittling or insult attempts, or, by appealing to the personality behind the arguments, but not to the arguments themselves, like you did in your next sentences. Anyway. Do I create anything? Yes. Is it finished? No. Will it be opensource? Yes. Does it matter in the current context? No. Why? Because if you just look around, you would see that the world is not as simple as you imagine it. If everyone would prefer things for free, then why lemmy still exists? Why anyone bothers to willingly pay it’s authors even if it gives no advantages? Why blender foundation still stands? There’re lots of “why”.
If you’re asking this question, then maybe you have read my comment poorly. I’ve never assumed what a hypothetical content creator thinks. I only pointed out that one should not consider pirated copies as a lost profit and pointed out why.
There was some cases in the game industry when the original game creators posted their own game on torrent trackers, and said that anyone could pirate their game. Guess what? The games still were successful. Each of them. Some even got additional support after that. Yeah, financial support by pirates. Sounds paradoxical, huh? The world is not just black and white, it’s all shades of grey.
If that was the case, they wouldn’t get to ingest the content. As it stands, they are ingesting the content without paying the authors of said content. They’re violating the social contract between a creator and the end-user.
Lol. Social contract? It’s not a social contract if it is written in paper by lawyers of only one side. It’s terms of service, which poorly transcribe rules of material world to the world of information.
I could copy your comment, and use it’s text as I would like. Have I stolen your comment? Have I violated social contract between us by doing so?
It is a social contract. We’re not talking about contracts or terms of services. We’re talking about the most basic social contract of any society in existence - you do/give something for/to me in exchange for me doing/giving something for/to you.
Did I make my comment with the expectation that someone would pay for it? No? Then your comment is nonsense.
Yeah, my analogy was bad. Haven’t put enough thought in it. But now that I did thought on the topic, I still can’t agree with you, here’s why:
If we were talking about our good old physical world, you’d be correct. For example we can take such thing as tipping: in the US you absolutely must tip. If I’ll go to the US I still will be expected to leave a tip, even though I’m not a local, and I will absolutely break a social contract if I do otherwise. Kinda obvious.
But here’s a thing: first of all, social contract is a consensus inside of a group. If there’s no consensus, there’s no social contract. There could be some, of course, if we look at a smaller set of people. But, here’s one more: the people in the Internet are not as divided as in real world, they’re all mixed up almost in every way they could be, so there’s no social contracts about the Internet, if we’re talking about it as a the whole of course, and so there are definitely none on the piracy topic. Where I came from, piracy is fine. Where you came from it is almost a crime. We have different social contracts irl.
So yeah, when you said that pirating is a social contract violation, what group of people you meant as the context? Because we’re currently on c/piracy, here it is the norm. And if there was a social contract on the discussed topic on lemmy, there would be no such community as the one we’re currently chatting in.
You could say that piracy violates our agreement on that stealing is bad, I might’ve said that you can’t steal the information, since you’re always only copying the original, but that would be not true. One could steal the information. My point is that piracy is different from stealing. What’s the distinction you may ask? Giving the credit I say. Here is the example: you’re a compositor. I steal your song if I copy it, maybe add some minor details (even though this step is completely optional), and then release it as if it was mine. This is stealing. Cutting webcomics’ watermarks and posting them that way, is also stealing. But if you upload your copy of a product you purchased, without covering original author’s name and claiming it yours, it’s sharing, don’t you think? Louvre pirated Mona Lisa by scanning it and sharing the scan online. You could see Mona Lisa for free. Does it lessen the amount of people wanting to visit the Louvre? I doubt that:)
Your argument is flawed. If you’ve ever purchased any kind of media for money then you are aware of the social contract. If you have a job where you do a service for someone in exchange for money, you are aware of and understand the social contract. The only subsection of people that this wouldn’t apply to is people who have only ever purchased physical goods and never paid for a service and I have to imagine that number is near zero.
As far as the “stealing” comment, you’re stealing the income from the creator. You’re not stealing the media if you’re not depriving someone of it. We can agree on that. If you make use of something without paying for it and it wasn’t given to you as a gift, you are stealing the livelihood from the creator who made it with the expectation that they would be paid for its use. Sharing something in this context is just semantics. If it wasn’t given to you with the intent to be shared, then that’s breaking another social contract.
There’s no other way to put it except that people would stop making art the way they do if they couldn’t make money off it. We live in a world where we need to make a living while trying to make the things we’re passionate about. There are very few people in the chain that make so much money that they can afford to do it while people “share” their work without paying.
this was the most popular response when this was posted on lemmy or kbin a couple months ago. seems the author is pushing a new wave with bots or alts? we’ll never know but some of the response seem identical to me.
The author of the article or me, the author of the comment?